“IMPERTINENT?”

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18619, 15 July 1930, Page 8

“IMPERTINENT?”

PLAYERS REPLY TO RUGBY UNION. EXPLANATION •RECEIVED.” The explanation that the Management Committee of u»e S.'Uih Canterbury Rugoy Union from H. Coxneaa, a member of the senior fifteen of Old Boys’ C.ub, as to wny he entered me at x raser Park without a piaye* s pass, or without paying the requned smiling and applying for a re* una. u\*s i£ad at last nights meeting of tne Management Committee, ihe letter was as follows: "Althougn personally, I dc not consider the riuleuicus attitude taken by your Umoii over my non-production of «i p aper's pass warrants any reply, rather than let my club down for the rest of me season, the following may clarify your evidently distorted impression of the position. Had your members reporting the matter been honest enough to give a correct account of the incident, you would realise that the trouble arose through either ignorance or absolute lack of tact on the part of some of your officials. I arrived at the gates in my football togs. I had not been issued with a player's pass. This was explained to your gate officials—that is—Mr Fairbrother, your secretary, and the gatekeeper. Your officials demanded Is entrance fee to be refunded on production of the pass, but as I was in football togs I did not carry same. This was also explained to your gate officials, who should , have had enough coivmonsense to realise the fact. However, after the above explanation, I was dog-like ordered out of the ground. Had your officials given the matter a little thought, they would have realised that I was there to play football and that my only alternative, after so being ordered out of the ground, was to wend my way home, a position that wouK not have been exactly fair to rr.y Learn. As they are officials controlling the game, on behalf of the players, the above attitude is hardly reasonable, so that it amounts to a charge of dishonesty in that they did not believe I had not been issued with a pass and that I did not carry a shilling. The player’s pass is issued for the identification of a player. Surely I was identified by those concerned, and there was no need for insult meted out to me when I was embarrassed at the gate and ordered out of the grounds. Under the circumstances. I consider I am due some form of apologv from your Union, or at least from the officials concerned. As explained previously,.l would rather have pulled out of the game than have been drawn into such a trivia! argument. r However, you have demanded this ex- - plaration, and my club have nsVrec 1 mo to put in a letter, and °fter a many years of football with them, they are due some consideration.” The chairman (Mr H. H. Fraser): ~ “Well we've got an explanation.”’ Mr G. Fairbrother: ‘lt's not an explanation.” Mr A. B. Herdman: “The letter is cheeky and impertirent.” The chairman: "We can't get any ' further, so should let the matter drop.”~ 3 Mr Fairbrother stated that if the matter was allowed to drop, the committee would not be upholding the actions of their officials. The chairman: “He has explained.” Mr Fairbrother: “Ke has not.” Mr J. Roseveare said that if any players behaved like that to him at—the gate, he would be inclined to shut • the gate to them. The secretary (Mr J. V. McKeagueh said that Coxhead had stated in his letter that he had spoken to the secretary and other officials. “He is wrong. I did not see him on that day,” said Mr McKeague. Mr J. Harley: “He's got no tact. We can't go any further, it would be useless.”

A member: "The letter is contemptuous.” Members: “Most.” Mr Harley: “Yes, but what can you do? Can you go any further?” Mr Harte said that f he letter was a smack in the eye for the officials who simply upheld the Union’s rules. Mr Herdman: “Mr Watson moved in the matter at last meeting. Is he satisfied with the letter.” Mr Watson: "It's an explanation.” Mr Herdman: “The matter should be held over to be gone into more fully." The chairman: “Get it over now.” Mr Watson: "I move the letter be received.” Mr Harley: “111 second that.” T ie motion, was defeated. The chairman: "Well, what do you Wart done then?” « Mr Watson: “I move that the explanation be received.” This failed to find a seconder. The chairman: “Do you want this accepted, or Coxhead to come before the committee. It's no good holding the meeting up all night over it.” Mr Watson: "Coxhead was asked for an explanation, and he has given one.” Mr Fairbrother: “He has gone further by insulting the officials in his reply.” Mr Watson: “In Coxhead's opinion the matter was not dealt with tactfully.” Mr Harte: “Would you call that, letter tactful?” Mr Watson: “No! but he’s expressed his opinion.” The chairman pointed out that there was no great hardship on anyone in letting Coxhead into the grounds. It had been suggested previously that, passes had been trafficked in. but as Coxhead’s pass did not come in on that day, there was no suggestion of this. Mr Harley: “It was the manner in which he entered the grounds that was objectionable. It is one of the things in football we have got to put up with.” Mr Harte: “If Coxhead gets away with insulting remarks, it, might encourage others to do the same.” Mr Watson: “It is his opinion, and. he is bold enough to put it in writing." Mr Harte: “We can't do anything with Coxhead. It might penalise his club.” Mr G. F. Doyle asked if there would be anything gained in bringing the player before the Committee at next meeting. Mr Harley: “None! He won't come. - ’ Mr Fairbrother stated that the gatekeeper took the right action. Coxhead was an old offender in that respect. Mr Harte was of opinion that the Union should object to the tone of the letter, but agree to let the matter drop. He moved: “That the explanation be received, but that the Union take strong exception to Coxhead's impertinent remarks: that he be informed also that the gatekeeper was only doing his duty, as instructed by the Union.” This was seconded by Mr Herdman * and carried.